Brook Run Development Corp. v. Noon, 230 Conn. App. 424 (2025)

defendant subsequently filed an amended answer and
         special defenses, in which she claimed, inter alia, that
         the lease had renewed at the current rent of $1200 per
         month and that the plaintiff’s claim that there was a
         termination of right or privilege to occupy the premises
         ‘‘must fail’’ due to principles of res judicata. The defen-
         dant argued that the court, in resolving the first action,
         had found that a valid lease existed between the parties.
         In its reply, the plaintiff generally denied those special
         defenses.
            A one day trial followed. The plaintiff called Robert
         Lanziero,6 who had drafted the lease and testified with
         respect to the automatic renewal provision set forth in
         paragraph 10 (A). Lanziero testified that he had hand-
         written the provision and that the defendant had never
         agreed to terminate the lease. Lanziero further testified
         that the lease allows the lessor to ‘‘preclude the lease
         from renewing an additional year.’’ Finally, Lanziero
         testified that the defendant had been leasing the prem-
         ises for eleven years and that she continues to pay
         the original $1200 rent, having refused to pay the rent
         increase. The court also heard testimony from the
         defendant’s neighbor and the defendant.
           In its memorandum of decision, the court noted, with
         respect to the first action, that the lease had terminated
         but that the defendant qualified as a protected tenant
         under § 47a-23c.7 The court also found that the defen-
         dant continued to pay $1200 per month to the plaintiff
         (rather than the increased rent of $1300) and that she
             6
              At all relevant times, Lanziero was the sole owner of the plaintiff corpora-
         tion.
            7
              As the defendant acknowledges in her briefing to this court, the May
         26, 2022 decision of the court in the first action found that the ‘‘term of the
         rental agreement terminated.’’ The court also found that the plaintiff had
         proven by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the service of the notice
         to quit, the termination date and service of the complaint ‘‘were all timely
         and made according to the relevant law.’’ The court dismissed four counts
         of the complaint but found in favor of the plaintiff on the lapse of time claim.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 5